Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/02/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB47 | |
| HB4 | |
| HJR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 4-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
8:08:29 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to military facility
zones." [Before the committee was CSHB 4(MLV).]
8:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 4, as prime sponsor. He said in 2012, House Bill
316 created military facility zones, which are "areas around a
municipality or city that are in close proximity to a military
facility." The military facility zones enable enhancement of a
military mission or lessen the expense involved in order for the
military to do its job. Further, military facility zones
encourage the military to stay in those areas. Representative
Thompson said CSHB 4(MLV) would allow someone who wants "to
build something or do something that will enhance that mission
for the military" in a military facility zone to be eligible for
a low-interest loan or for tax credits.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON said there has been a lot of interest
around the state for military facility zones. For example: the
naval range in Ketchikan needs a new dock; the military facility
in Kodiak needs new housing; and there is a lot of activity
going on at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage
and at [Eielson Air Force Base] and Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks
that could benefit under CSHB 4(MLV).
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON said a problem had been pointed out to
him. He explained as follows:
The way that you have to become a military facility
zone is you have to apply to the adjutant general in
the state and he has to approve it, but there are
certain steps that have to be in place. One is that
the plan has to comply with the comprehensive plan of
the municipality. Comprehensive plans - a lot of
places - they are aren't up to date; they only redo
them about every 10 years; and to change a
comprehensive plan could take up to a year or more.
If somebody has something that they want to build or
something that will enhance this military mission - it
might not comply with the old comprehensive plan, and
to change it would be cumbersome.
8:12:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON indicated that an amendment adding "or
local ordinance" would "allow this to happen in [a] more
expeditious manner, as far as trying to get that." He mentioned
another amendment to the bill that proposes an immediate
effective date. A third change was to hold harmless the
adjutant general.
8:12:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if, from a local municipal
government's standpoint, a decision on zoning has any more or
less impact as compared to a decision in a comprehensive plan.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that sometimes it takes a long
period of time to change a comprehensive plan. He said zoning
must go through the community's assembly, which is a long
process involving more than one meeting and public hearings. He
concluded, "It's a process, but can be done in a month or so
instead of a year or longer."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that "zoning is no
less clear an expression of the local government's and the
people's will than a comprehensive plan change."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that's correct.
8:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE remarked that the proposed bill "looks
pretty good." He cited language in Section 1, on page 1, lines
7-8, which read:
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the
municipality or local zoning ordinances
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE commented that Kotzebue, in which he
lives, "belongs to the municipality," and he questioned whether
the language could be misinterpreted, such as, "Well, we're ...
the local zoning authority; we can do this."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that he does not see any issue
there, because the term "local zoning ordinances" is a common
one to use in a municipality or a borough, both of which have
local zoning ordinances that address property use inside their
designated areas.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE noted that there still is a military
base in Kotzebue. He said Kotzebue has both city and borough
planning commissions. He surmised that other communities with
the same composition of commissions may have worked out a way to
integrate. He suggested that changing the language on line 7 to
read something along the lines of "with the comprehensive plan
of the municipal local zoning ordinances" would "make it much
easier."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON said he had not been aware there were
any places in the state that had both borough and city zoning;
most places in the state are set up for the borough to control
the zoning.
8:16:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER mentioned that the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs had heavily vetted
HB 4 and had come up with [CSHB 4(MLV)], which he said does not
overstep or bring something into play that is not allowed in a
specified zones. He said he has served on comprehensive
planning boards in the past and is familiar with the lengthy
process that can take two to three years. He stated his support
of CSHB 4(MLV).
8:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the borough does not need to be
mentioned because it is covered under local ordinances.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered, "Yes, whoever the authority is
in that particular area around a military facility zone." He
noted that [under AS 26.30.020(a)(1)] a military facility zone
is considered to be within close proximity [to a facility]. He
offered his understanding that the federal government describes
a military facility zone as within 100 miles of a military
facility. He said, "It'd have to be an organized municipality
that applied for that." He questioned whether Delta, which he
said is not an organized city, would be able to make such an
application.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked, then, if it was not necessary to
add "borough" to line 7, on page 1. She said it sounds like
Representative Westlake has a comprehensive plan in the North
Slope Borough, as well as in the City of Barrow. She said she
was involved with the Anchorage Municipal Assembly with a 2020
Comprehensive Plan, which she indicated took ten years in the
making.
8:19:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that CSHB 4(MLV)
would not require a new zoning ordinance of any community; an
existing zoning ordinance would allow for creation of a military
facility zone.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that if a municipality or city
wanted to change land use in order to build something that will
"enhance the military," it would need to change its zoning for
that area through a zoning ordinance.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested, "Or for an existing zoning
ordinance allowed for the planning and zoning board, for
example, to make that decision, without a new ordinance - that
would be sufficient."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER summarized that the proposed legislation
would not prevent a community that has a new or active
comprehensive plan or one with a regular updating cycling plan
from including an active military facility zone; CSHB 4(MLV)
would just "broaden the applicability of the military facility
zones."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that he was a sponsor of another
bill that created the [military facility] zones; is a co-sponsor
of HB 4; and he thinks the proposed legislation is a great way
to "make this beneficial mechanism available to more communities
on a more expeditious basis."
8:21:31 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH opened public testimony on CSHB 4(MLV).
8:22:07 AM
BOB DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), testified that DMVA supports CSHB
4(MLV) as meeting the intent of the original legislation of 2012
that allowed military zones in Alaska. He said the department
believes that the proposed legislation would provide the
necessary flexibility to enable local jurisdictions "to go
forward." He emphasized that allowing military facility zones
where appropriate for local jurisdictions and the nearby
military bases is important toward maximizing the
competitiveness of bases nationwide.
8:22:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Doehl if he is familiar with
how other military zones are being used around the country.
MR. DOEHL answered that currently they are being used to enable
infrastructure or supply. He noted that in a week he would be
giving a presentation on the issue in Fairbanks, Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that most of the discussions about
investees have focused on the Interior or Ketchikan, Alaska. He
asked if there is any possibility for military facility zones to
be used within 50 to 100 miles of JBER.
MR. DOEHL answered that without judging a military facility zone
application from Anchorage or one of the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley jurisdictions, he thinks there is ample opportunity to
"look at options that make our bases more competitive." He
related that military bases in Alaska are challenged by the high
cost of transporting goods, housing, and energy - all of which
he said he thinks are potential projects that could reduce the
costs, where Alaska businesses could thrive from some federal
money coming in and, in the process, lower the operating costs
for the bases compared to bringing the goods and services in
from Outside.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER mentioned JBER and an effort that had
been made for Alaska to maintain a military presence in the face
of pressure to reduce "basing costs." He asked if military
facility zones would help JBER become more competitive and,
thus, more able to resist closure under the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process.
MR. DOEHL answered that in the event another BRAC is introduced
by Congress, a military facility zone could considerably enhance
competitiveness, which could keep JBER and other military bases
in Alaska open. He added, "And as long as we're sitting where
we are today with the military saying they have 22 percent
excess capacity, it's important that we maximize the
competitiveness of our bases."
8:26:48 AM
JEFF STEPP, Special Assistant, Mayor's Office, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, thanked the bill sponsor and the committee for
efforts to ensure that military facility zones are a viable
mechanism to generate economic development in military
communities throughout Alaska. He said he would like to echo
and affirm the remarks made by the bill sponsor and Mr. Dole.
He said Mayor Castle, of the Fairbanks North Star Borough
supports CSHB 4(MLV). He noted that a staff of the borough,
Christine Nelson, was available to talk about issues specific to
the borough's comprehensive plan and local zoning ordinance.
8:28:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the previous discussion
regarding municipalities and boroughs and asked if boroughs are
incorporated.
MR. STEPP said he does not know.
8:29:11 AM
CHRISTINE NELSON, Director, Planning Department, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, stated that while she could not parlay the status
of every borough, the interpretation of "municipality" in "the
original bill" did include the Fairbanks North Star Borough and
other designated boroughs, the incorporated status of which she
indicated she did not know. She said, "If there's an
unincorporated city that is not in a borough, [then] ... this
may not apply to them, but if it is in a recognized borough, it
would."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned if the bill sponsor would
want language to include boroughs. He asked the same question
of Mr. Doehl.
8:30:39 AM
MR. DOEHL stated that the department believes the current
language in CSHB 4(MLV) is "adequate for the purposes going
forward." He said the department believes that the local
jurisdictions "will sort out any jurisdictional issues before
they get to us." He reiterated that he does not see a potential
conflict that would require amending CSHB 4(MLV).
8:31:35 AM
MS. NELSON began her testimony by offering a brief example of
the reason the proposed legislation is necessary. She stated
that in 2014, the Fairbanks North Star Borough planned to apply
for a military facility zone to establish an unmanned vehicle
technical and research park. The site was near Eielson Air
Force Base and was intended to be a partnership cooperative
agreement between the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the
borough, and possibly the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Ms.
Nelson explained that although the existing general use zoning
would have allowed for the park, the comprehensive plan
designation was for an agricultural and open space and would
have required an extensive and costly amendment process. She
added that while the borough's comprehensive plan was updated in
2006, the actual map with the land use designation was from
1990. She said the project died in progress because of the
necessity for that change.
MS. NELSON related that comprehensive plans cover general,
broad-based land use. Conversely, zoning is parcel specific and
tailored to "exact needs of the land area in those locations."
She stated that allowing a community to use either the local
zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan gives the community
more flexibility to determine compliance and greater opportunity
to establish a military facility zone, "thus supporting the
military mission and bringing jobs and economic development both
to the community and the state in general."
8:33:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND again directed attention to the language
on page 1, [beginning on] line 7 [through line 8], which read as
follows:
the comprehensive plan of the municipality or local
zoning ordinances
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that "or local zoning ordinances"
was proposed language. She asked Ms. Nelson if the Fairbanks
North Star Borough would be covered under the word
"municipality" or if following "municipality" the words "or
borough" should be added.
MS. NELSON stated that the borough's attorneys have interpreted
"municipality" as inclusive of the borough, and she offered her
assumption that the state's attorneys have the same
interpretation. She reiterated that the borough had planned to
apply "under this ... previous version of this bill." She said
if a city is not incorporated or in a recognized borough, then
it would not have a comprehensive plan or a local zoning
ordinance; therefore, "this would be comprehensive to those
communities that have those tools in which to plan land use."
MS. NELSON, in response to a question from Representative
Drummond, confirmed that [Eielson Air Force Base and Fort
Wainwright] are within the boundaries of the Fairbanks North
Star Borough. She said the borough does not regulate land use
on those bases, but does regulate land use all around them. She
noted that Fort Wainwright is also partially in the City of
Fairbanks, as well. She related that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough is the local planning authority for the entire borough,
including the few incorporated cities, and it has both a local
zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan that cover "all around
those bases," and the military facility zones would be located
somewhere near either of the bases should the borough choose to
apply in the future.
8:36:16 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 4(MLV).
8:36:59 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that CSHB 4(MLV) was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB004 ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sponsor Statement ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sectional Analysis ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Fiscal Note DMVA-CO 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Explanation of Changes ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HJR 10 sponsor statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Antiquities Act 1906.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Congressional Research Antiquities Act.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Support - RDC.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 responses to Questions 3-2-2017.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |